Airbus to suspend production of A400M

[bits44]

Not a surprising move by Airbus, considering the losses they have already incurred.

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1225791238.html

[beaucaire]

It was obvious that a cooperation with Antonov and a modernized version of the AN-72 would have been cheapernfaster and more rewarding for the customers.
The engine f.uck up was predictable - once you force four companies to jointly develop an engine for sheer political reasons,the result had to be a mess..

[smokejumper]

This is probably the best solution to many bad and worse scenarios. It will add to the penalties that Airbus willl have ot pay, but this is preferable to having to modify a number of aircraft to correct the inevitable issues following a flight test program .

[achace]

Frankly,
IMHO the C130 was a lousy option to choose as aaa flying test bed.
As it is said, "if it looks right, it flies right", and never in your wildest dreams could anyone say the A400M engine FTB looks right.
It looks likely to shed a wing once serious power testing gets under way.

A Russian Antonov, a Belfast or even the last flying C133 would surely have offered a better option.

The question is who chose the C130?

[regi]

to the webmaster:
can you change the title please? There is no mentoning in the article about a suspension of the A400 programm.
My posting about the overrun at Lanzarote was also corrected.

[bits44]

to the webmaster:
can you change the title please? There is no mentoning in the article about a suspension of the A400 programm.
My posting about the overrun at Lanzarote was also corrected.

Might want to actually read the article!

" France's Les Echos newspaper reported on Tuesday that EADS had decided to suspend A400M production to avoid a build-up of assembled aircraft before test flights had even begun."

[tolipanebas]

to the webmaster:
can you change the title please? There is no mentoning in the article about a suspension of the A400 programm.
My posting about the overrun at Lanzarote was also corrected.

Might want to actually read the article!

" France's Les Echos newspaper reported on Tuesday that EADS had decided to suspend A400M production to avoid a build-up of assembled aircraft before test flights had even begun."

I find it a very misleading title too, sounding as if EADS is going to stop the A400 program; reality is EADS has no option but to cut back the work on the program for the time being, because their engine partner has fallen so far behind, they'd risk filling the tarmac of SVQ with near-finished A400Ms without engines!

I know these are though time for you bits44, with Boeing having to announce its 5th delay to the deeply entroubled 787 program and already giving guidance as to a 6th delay because of a new round of fastener-problems AGAIN, but there really is no need to play the 'they do it too' game when it comes to EADS... the A400M is delayed because of external factors, whereas with the 787, only Boeing is to blame.

[regi]

completely right Bits 44 :
you made a link to airwise which did not use the word suspend, but in the airwise article they refer to a french article which does use the word suspend.
So, again the title should change - except - and that would be the worst case scenario - that the programm would really be suspended.

[jan_olieslagers]

Well for this once I'm supporting Bits44. Can we please respect words for what they mean?
To suspend = to suspend (Nl. "opschorten")
To stop = to stop (Nl. "beëindigen, stopzetten")
His message and his sources were clear enough, for those willing to read.
No need to compare to other a/c builders, either: to everyone his own troubles!

[bits44]

Well for this once I'm supporting Bits44. Can we please respect words for what they mean?
To suspend = to suspend (Nl. "opschorten")
To stop = to stop (Nl. "beëindigen, stopzetten")
His message and his sources were clear enough, for those willing to read.
No need to compare to other a/c builders, either: to everyone his own troubles!

Thanks, I always try to quote the original source if possible, and I certainly did not mean to imply in any way
that production was going to cease entirely.

I'm sure Airbus will sort out the problems eventually, the sooner the better for all concerned.

[RC20]

to the webmaster:
can you change the title please? There is no mentoning in the article about a suspension of the A400 programm.
My posting about the overrun at Lanzarote was also corrected.

Might want to actually read the article!

" France's Les Echos newspaper reported on Tuesday that EADS had decided to suspend A400M production to avoid a build-up of assembled aircraft before test flights had even begun."

I find it a very misleading title too, sounding as if EADS is going to stop the A400 program; reality is EADS has no option but to cut back the work on the program for the time being, because their engine partner has fallen so far behind, they'd risk filling the tarmac of SVQ with near-finished A400Ms without engines!

I know these are though time for you bits44, with Boeing having to announce its 5th delay to the deeply entroubled 787 program and already giving guidance as to a 6th delay because of a new round of fastener-problems AGAIN, but there really is no need to play the 'they do it too' game when it comes to EADS... the A400M is delayed because of external factors, whereas with the 787, only Boeing is to blame.

Me thinks you should stick to the subject and not use it as a method to vent on another area, open up a title for that if you want to.

BITTS44 is one of the more even handed and thoughtful members of this group, with some very valuable insightful views as well as Boeing contacts.

[smokejumper]

The operative word should be "production slow-down". The AP reports"

"EADS announces slowdown in A400M production
2 days ago

PARIS (AP) — Airbus parent company EADS is throttling back on production of its new A400M military transport aircraft in response to delays in the delivery of its propulsion system, a spokeswoman for the program said Tuesday.

"We decided a production slowdown some days ago to adapt to continuing uncertainties with the propulsion system," said spokeswoman Barbara Kracht. She declined to provide any further details on changes to the production schedule.

Kracht dismissed a report Tuesday in French business daily Les Echos that EADS was "suspending" production of the A400M, insisting, "It was not a production stop."

EADS has described the A400M as Europe's most ambitious military procurement program ever.

Two of the aircraft have been completed and four others are in various stages of production, Les Echos' report said. The aircraft's first delivery is scheduled for the end of 2010, one year later than originally planned, the report said.

In September, EADS indefinitely postponed the A400M's first flight because of delays in the development of its propulsion system — the engines, propellers and related electronics. "

see: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iHGU ... gD9484SN80

[RC20]

More background picked up on the program. Looks to be 4 years late now.

This put Great Britain in a squeeze that they may have to cancel out (and wouldn't that cause a ruckus!). 4 years is just too long when they need the Airlift now (an can get it immediately not a long introduction and issues to clear up while getting into service) , and the C130s age is a serious huge issue in this as well.

I had not known CASA had assembly responsibility for the airframe, so you can see how that part got to be a mess (too many cooks, and to many political give aways) Whole thing is obviously was out of control. Reminds me of the 787!

Also, 12 tons overweight.

I did like the statement in other link, "we screwed up on this by setting it up the way we did, guaranteeing it that way and how we did the program" but we shouldn't be held accountable. Guess the financial institutions don't have a corner on Chutzpah!

Some Text as follows, I don't have the link.

PARIS – Airbus is facing much more than just contractual and schedule challenges in its A400M military airlifter program, as the aircraft may need massive re-engineering work to achieve its performance targets.

In turn, numerous issues threaten to make the A400M a less attractive and capable aircraft for its customers, industry sources tell Aviation Week. They come in addition to the well-publicized delays in the flight-test program that are linked to the lagging engine full authority digital engine control (FADEC) development (Aerospace DAILY, Nov. 25, 2008).

One key area of concern appears to be the A400M being overweight, which would negatively affect the aircraft’s payload and range capabilities. Sources close to the program say the aircraft is significantly heavy in its current development status. The first six units to be used in the flight-test program are 12 tons heavier than planned, those sources say. A weight savings campaign has identified a reduction potential of 7 tons. Early production aircraft will only incorporate reductions of 5 tons at the most, leaving payload below the 30-ton mark.

Airbus officials suggest the main performance criteria aren’t at any particular risk. Executive Vice President for Programs Tom Williams says the more he has reviewed the program, the more certain he has become “this is still going to be a bloody good airplane.” The aircraft is beating its short field performance and load targets, he says.

Yet, industry sources say the weight problem could well turn out to be the primary issue with the aircraft, rather than engine software. One observer believes the A400M payload will end up 3-4 tons below the original target even after all possible design changes, which could include the introduction of carbon fiber in noncritical areas. The three-year time frame proposed by EADS between the first flight and first delivery at the end of 2012 at the earliest would suggest that modifications to some parts of the aircraft structure also are possible.

Sources close to the Europrop International engine consortium say that FADEC issues with the TP400 are expected to be resolved by June. The EADS chief executive said earlier this month that once an acceptable standard FADEC was provided, the A400M could fly around one month later. But in addition to software, there are also hardware issues surrounding the engines. Because of unexpectedly high loads, cracks were found in some of the original design engine gearbox casings. Those needed to be partially strengthened. The sources say that upgraded casings already have been delivered to the Sevilla, Spain, final-assembly line and will be installed to replace the original parts.

Some special operational performance goals also are in doubt, according to people familiar with the details. The A400M may not be able to fly “Sarajevo profile” steep approaches because of possible flutter issues with the propellers.

Finally, some systems may be rejected by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), people familiar with the program say. The agency appears not to agree with how oxygen bottles and fire protection systems are installed in the fuselage and main gear bay. If no agreement is reached, the A400M will not be given EASA approval needed for the planned civil certification.

An EASA official says the agency does not comment on ongoing certification processes.

[regi]

And just now they threaten to stop the use of the Nimrods outside the UK as well.
The military air superiority of the UK is dropping by the week.

[RC20]

UK is in a tough position

Politically they would get chewed on for caceling
I think they will come up whit something like "we are deferring, giving up our lead positions and will buy at the end of the run" and hope something happens in between they can bow out (like all the bugs are worked out and someone else wants them)

Operationally it no longer makes any sense, they can't afford it, wrong aircraft for the changed global mission (good grief, it was just going to replace the Transall to start with!) So, you start to replace the Transall, and wind up with something twice as big as a Herc. Hmmm..

In the meantime, the Italians came out with the C27 (well a derivative ove the G. 222 which does make sense) and replaced the Transall. Buy C130s and C17s. That might make a A330 tanker a palatable choice if the competition is fair.

[RC20]

Airbus has gotten Germany and France to go alone with another extensions.

GB has not weighed in yet. Thats 6 months on top of the 3 months, put it at the end of the year.

Looks like they are trying to play to the emotions to the max (if you can't sell quality, sell emotions)

How soon before GB says stuff it?

[regi]

well, Airbus is confident that this thing will fly end of the year.
If you read in detail, they don't mention which year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMol ... GL20091010

PARIS/FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Airbus is confident its delayed A400M military transport plane will fly by the end of the year but dismissed a magazine report that its maiden flight could come as soon as November 30 as "fantasy."